All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:53
February 1, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, look, folks, it is huge.
The judge ruling in health care, unconstitutional.
The entire thing is unconstitutional.
And contrary to what you're hearing in a number of places, the judge did not say, oh, by the way, go ahead and keep implementing this thing while you appeal it.
The judge did not say that.
It is not in his ruling.
The whole thing's been declared unconstitutional, and the Democrats don't have a response other than to attack the judge.
That's all that it's an outlier.
What do they say?
Um it's um what do you say about it?
It's surpassingly what it uh surpassingly curious and thoroughly odd and unconventional uh and so forth.
But who's really out of touch?
We have a majority of states, 26 in the U.S. who agree with Judge Vincent's ruling.
According to polls, two-thirds of all Americans would agree with Judge Vinson's ruling.
And yet the White House and the state control media call this uh uh ruling an outlier.
Great to have you rush Limbaugh, the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
I'm gonna tell you everything you need to know about this, and as an added bonus, we are going to provide on-the-spot advice for how the Republicans ought to deal with this and deal with this starting today.
Uh the Republicans, God love them, they just it's like Catherine says about our puppy.
She just doesn't know.
They just don't know the Republicans are now closing ranks with the Democrats on this Egypt business so that we can present a unified front.
There are no calls for what happened here.
Who is the Muslim Brotherhood and what's really going on?
Where was the intel on this?
Why didn't you guys there is no strategy here to try to uh use this, this thing in Egypt, as as an albatross to hang around the administration's nose or neck as they would be doing to us.
But I'll get to all that in uh in in due course.
Uh once again, telephone number 800-282-2882, email address illrushboard EIB net.com.
Remember last year?
When a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if the Constitution allows the federal government to force people to have health insurance, she said, Are you serious?
Are you serious?
As though she thought that was one of the stupidest questions that she's ever heard.
Yeah, we're serious, we're damn serious.
And a federal judge has just ruled the whole thing unconstitutional because of that.
Because of the Commerce Clause violation.
You cannot require, the federal government cannot require that citizens buy something, nor can they require that citizens don't buy something.
It works either way.
And the regime, they knew full well they had a chance to put a severability clause on this.
And they chose not to.
Now, the severability clause is basically if any part of this is found unconstitutional, the rest of it uh remains okay.
The judge in his ruling said there is no severability clause.
I'm finding the whole thing unconstitutional.
Now, very salient thing that I wish to explain to you because I'm uh I had a lot of questions about this in the email, and I am listening to a whole bunch of um liberals try to massage this.
Uh the story is that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law.
The senior administration source said that implementation will proceed apace.
So Obama's staff is saying we are not going to comply with a federal court's ruling.
Now, here's what ought to happen.
Right now, and this by the way, there's another thing I want to tackle, and that is this notion that left's also saying, but there are two other judges, there are two other judges, and they haven't ruled this way, doesn't matter.
One federal judge has ruled the whole thing unconstitutional, and the regime has to deal with that.
They have to appeal it.
They have to ask for a stay.
What the other two judges doesn't matter, I'll explain in great detail in a moment.
Here's what needs to happen.
Deal with this legally.
This this got started in a Washington Times piece.
The first thing somebody sent to me yesterday afternoon, where it stated that um the judge does not prohibit the implementation while the ruling is on appeal.
He most certainly did not say that.
I've read it.
I have consulted legal beagles.
My dad was a lawyer.
I know this stuff now.
And the judge did not say that.
So right now, Obama's staff is saying we're not going to comply with a federal court's ruling, which is not unprecedented.
They did the same thing during the drilling moratorium in the Gulf.
You had another judge there who said this ruling's unconstitutional.
They said, Oh, screw it.
Well, we're just going to keep uh the moratorium in place and went out and got a bunch of people make a statement about it and put their signatures to a lie about the dangers involved.
So how should this be dealt with legally now?
Any one of the states involved in a litigation, any one of those 26 states has standing to go back to the court and ask the court to enforce its decision and to ask the court to hold the administration in contempt should it continue to defy the court's order.
That is the legal option that any of the states, any of those attorney generals have in those 26 states.
In fact, if I were an AG for a state, if I were an attorney general, I would take that news article with that quote, This is uh ABC, noting that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law.
A senior administration source said implementation will proceed at pace.
I would take that ABC story and this passage, and I go back to court today with a draft contempt order, and I would ask the court to hold an immediate hearing to determine whether the Obama administration is going to comply with the ruling or not.
This is not chump change.
This is not insignificant.
This is major.
And think back to Watergate.
Imagine if Nixon had defied the judiciary during Watergate.
Can you imagine the hell that would have broken loose?
It's the same thing here, folks.
This is no different.
This is no different whatsoever.
Nixon, he ob he abided by the judiciary's uh rulings back during Watergate.
If he hadn't, we would have had a constitutional crisis.
In fact, some think we bordered on one very closely.
And this could be if the regime just thumbs its nose at the ruling here of Judge Vinson.
The judge, again, has ruled the entire Obamacare void.
The news media failing to report this.
Even some on our side are not getting this right.
Now, as for the GOP, the Republicans in the House and the Senate, they need to continue to attack this statute.
This is not a time to let up.
This is not a time to say, okay, the courts come out and made a ruling, we'll let them do the heavy lifting and we'll just back off so that we don't irritate the people.
Wrong move.
In fact, the uh the Senate, Jim Dement and the boys, they let all 47 in the Senate voted to repeal this thing.
This is no, this is time to put the pedal of the metal.
They need to continue to attack this law, try to repeal it, try to defend, defund it, in case a higher court reverses course.
It's always possible.
Look at folks, I'm not trying to throw cold water on anything, but we know that Clinton and Obama have appointed a tremendous number of left-leaning judges.
We know how those judges rule in cases like um Club Gitmo and terrorism and military tribunals and uh and all of the left, all the rest of this.
Uh so it's it's we gotta proceed here under the proper assumption that it's possible that a higher court will reverse Judge Vinson.
There is no reason the Republicans Should sit back.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
This ruling ought to light a fire under them.
This ruling ought to inspire them.
This ought to give them even more impetus to go after this law, since they have a lower court ruling that supports their opposition on constitutional grounds.
It's one thing to want to repeal this because the American people don't want it.
It's one thing to repeal it on the uh in the context of democratic principles.
It's another thing to have a federal court rule a whole thing unconstitutional.
That's another arrow in the quiver.
Hell.
It's another bomb in the arsenal, and it needs to be used.
But more than that, for the Republicans, the law would need to be repealed whether or not it is unconstitutional because it is a disaster.
This cannot be forgotten.
We just need this is just a new front now to add from which we may attack this.
This this, whether it was unconstitutional or not, whether if this judge's ruling had gone against us, it would not have changed anything.
Because this law is a disaster for the American people.
This law, Obamacare destroys the American health care system, it destroys patient choice, it destroys and significantly harms health care availability, and it destroys whatever is left of the nation's treasury.
That's where we are.
This ruling should provide more impetus, more energy, and more ammo.
It's a huge decision.
It will be reviewed by an appellate court and it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
And the difference, folks, between winners and losers, losers would sit back on their laurels and say, all right, court came out in our favor, we'll sit back here and we'll just watch this thing traverse the courts.
Winners make sure they get over the finish line.
And they don't rest until they do.
If the administration, uh, follow me on this, if the regime goes to the appeals court with a request for a stay, they might get it, folks.
This is too sweet.
We need to we need it, we need a stay of this ruling so we can figure out where we are.
Well, they may get it.
The appeals courts generally are more liberal now, not only because of the Obama presidency, but because they block so many Bush nominees.
Now, I'm just prognosticant.
I don't know how this is going to happen.
I'm just listing the possibilities here.
This is serious.
The left publicly is taking this, they're kind of laughing about it.
Yeah, it's an outlier behind closed doors.
They are scared.
Behind closed doors, this is the crumbling of everything they had in mind for this regime.
This is the crumbling of every plan they have to socialize this country.
Behind closed doors, they are plotting strategy every bit as they have for every other issue for as long as you and I have been alive.
They are in panic mode.
Dick Turban, the Judiciary Committee ranking member, majority member in the Senate, is holding a hearing on the constitutionality of the ruling.
Now, all that should have happened before they passed it.
But they're panicking over this.
So, if the administration goes to the appeals court with a stay request, that's actually good for us.
That's the point.
That is the point.
The state of play legally right now is the federal court has voided the law.
It's unconstitutional right now, immediately.
The administration thus has to go to the appeals court to stay that ruling in order to continue its implementation, pending a final decision by a higher court.
That's the point.
They request a stay, they are acknowledging the judge's ruling.
And then they have to Make an argument for a stay.
Now, if you are preparing to call this program and say to me, hey, blowhard.
Two other federal judges said it is constitutional.
If you're wondering what I would say, should I get disrespectful phone calls like that?
Let me answer briefly, take a brief time out and come out and explain in detail.
For example, if a new Castrati gets through to Snerdley.
Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Lumbo, you feel confident.
You feel like you know it all, but we know that two other federal have fed this law is constitutional.
What about that?
Mr. New Castrati, it means nothing.
Your two other rulings mean nothing.
And I will explain why in mere moments.
Hey we're back.
It's Rush Lynn bought this to EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
One other thing.
I'm getting a ton of emails about the Haney Project, too.
And I want to in the next half hour I'll address this.
Rush, uh, we're trying to keep up here, but uh Hank's unhappy.
You don't seem happy, but nobody knows why.
I mean, what are they trying to fix?
What are you doing wrong that they're trying to fix?
Folks, it's all gonna start coming together on tonight's episode.
I'll explain all this in uh in mere mode.
It really boils down to the fact that the the great leap of improvement, and there was, there has been, did not happen during a taping session with Haney coaching going on.
It happened after I left a Haney Taping, came back home, started playing, uh, and it all come together.
It'll all come together, actually starting with tonight's episode.
But let me let me 9 o'clock Eastern Golf Channel.
Here's the answer to the question that I knew, and I still might get it for the new Castrati.
Well, we have two other federal judges who said that Obamacare is constitutional.
What about that?
Here's the true answer.
Don't doubt me.
It means nothing.
Here's why.
If even one court rules that a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter that two courts haven't.
This is pure logic, folks.
If one court, just one, this Judge Vincent rules that a law, any law, is unconstitutional.
The regime does not have the ability to choose between court decisions.
It can't say, well, I'm going to ignore Judge Vincent, I'm gonna go back, and we're gonna obey and deal with these other two.
Can't do that.
The regime must comply with federal court rulings.
Isn't that what the libs tell us, by the way?
Those two decisions are of no consequence because they don't prevent the government from acting.
We have a ruling here that in its scope supersedes those two.
This decision voids Obamacare.
This decision throws it out.
This decision prevents the federal government from acting.
This decision prevents the federal government from implementing the law.
So, as a matter of legal recourse, the regime needs to get that resolved.
It cannot say we don't care what the court says.
It cannot say we're gonna rely on the decisions that we like.
So we all know where this is headed.
It's gonna it's gonna be up to the Supreme Court to sort out the divisions among the lower courts, which it will do when it eventually rules.
In the meantime, the executive branch is not free to pick and choose or sort them out.
It must comply with a decision striking down the law.
Now the legal experts are guessing next year the case will be in the appeals court, SCOTUS will take it up in 2012.
That's just people guessing I as as to the time frame of this.
My point is that the regime has to deal with a federal decision voiding its law.
In the other cases, they didn't have to take any action.
No action was needed because the courts didn't rule that way.
Courts just rule on various aspects, aspects, but it did not prevent the regime from acting.
This decision does.
Now the Republicans in the House and Senate must be ready for the Supreme Court to take an opposite position.
I'm not saying they will.
And I hope to God the court doesn't.
But you have to assume.
It's it's in golf.
You have to assume the opponent's gonna make the putt.
You just you have to assume the other side is going to perform to its max.
You just have to assume that in preparing your strategy.
The Republicans in the House and Senate, as a matter of strategy here, must be ready for the Supreme Court to overrule, overturn Judge Vinson.
That's why, in the meantime, they must continue to pursue repeal of the whole law.
None of this, well, there's parts in it that we like.
They got cover now.
A judge has said the whole thing is unconstitutional.
So ditch the whole thing, defund the whole thing.
No deals, no negotiations.
Kill it.
Now, this is counterintuitive to certain Republican leaders.
They spent years and years up there making deals and looking for common ground.
But this is not an occasion to look for common ground.
This is an occasion to build upon a decision at rules.
The fundamental building block of Obama's reason to be president, unconstitutional.
Don't misread this and conclude that for PR and political reasons, they'll do something weak or something else.
It would be disastrous for them for the party and mostly the nation.
A golden opportunity awaits.
Okay, so in review, ladies and gentlemen, where are we?
A federal judge has just ruled all of Obamacare void, unconstitutional.
He has not said it may continue to be implemented under appeal.
This ruling, ladies and gentlemen, demonstrates that we cannot tweak Obamacare.
We can't throw out the parts we don't like, but keep some things we do like, and then build on that.
Even a federal judge, a Reagan appointee, by the way, about which I'm gonna have more to say in mere moments.
But this regime, all of a sudden the last couple weeks loves Reagan, right?
Obama's out there.
Reagan, he wanted to be Reagan-esque at the State of the Union.
The drive-by is a singing the praise of Ronald Reagan.
Fine.
Absolutely wonderful.
We need to remind everybody this is a Reagan-appointed federal judge.
And that we are living not under a Reagan economy, but Obama economy, Hooverville, Obamaville.
So where are we?
Federal judge has realized you cannot work this health care law without this mandate tax.
He has seen it.
He's got some brilliant, brilliant writing from this judge.
Let me give you an example.
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part as the result of opposition, to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.
This is brilliant.
It is common sense simplicitity equaling brilliance.
It's difficult to imagine a nation which began at least in part as the result of opposition to a British mandate, giving the East India Tea Company a monopoly in the colonies, and then imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in the Boston Tea Party.
Difficult to imagine that the founders would then have set out to create a government with the same power to force people to buy tea in the first place.
Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, this was not about tea, and you know what this was about health insurance.
Mr. New Castratti, if they can force us to buy health insurance, they can force us to buy broccoli.
That's not what it means, Mr. Lumboy.
People like you in charge, Mr. New Castradi.
Once you people get it in your in your in your uh heads that you can force us to buy health insurance, what's to stop you from making us buy a stupid electric car?
That's why this is unconstitutional.
And there's no implementing it while it's under appeal.
So where are we?
Well.
What happens if Obama ignores it?
Everything I've read from the regime says that's an outlier.
It's surprisingly insufficient.
It's they have objected to it every which way but legally.
I've not yet read a legal response to this ruling from the regime.
So if Obama ignores it, he's defying a federal court.
I can't remember.
Well, yes, I can.
I was going to say I can't remember when a president has openly defied a federal court.
But Obama did the Ken Salazar, the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico after the Reag explosion out there.
But a f but a president and administration openly defying a federal court ruling is an extremely serious constitutional crisis.
Whether the media thinks it is or not.
Again, I just ask you if if if Nixon had ignored the judiciary during Watergate, what do you think?
And liberals would have gone nuts about it.
So is Obama going to uphold a law and comply with the Constitution or not.
Whatever a court does down the road is beside the point.
The ruling of the day is the law is unconstitutional.
It has been voided.
The regime must legally deal with this, and they will, if they ask for a stay, then they are acknowledging the ruling and admitting that they understand it.
Doesn't matter that it might be overturned later.
The law of the land right now is this is unconstitutional.
We have three branches legislative, executive, judiciary.
The executive cannot tell the legislative or the judicial what to do.
This bunch thinks they can.
Senator Chuck Hugh Schumer was asked about the three branches.
I don't know if he was serious or not.
Some people think he was serious.
He said you have the House, the Senate, and the President.
Wouldn't doubt if he were serious.
We do know that this regime violated and ignored a federal court order on their drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.
So we have an increasingly lawless president.
Did you mean to say that, Mrtho Limboy?
Yes, I did, Mr. New Castradi.
We have an increasingly lawless president.
Look at his attack on the Supreme Court over Citizens United.
Plus his administration administration saying they'll continue to implement this law.
CBS had that story last night.
What you see is a lawless statist mentality, in this case, unconstitutional behavior, if the regime does not comply with the court.
Plain and simple.
Now the media is not attacking Vincent, the judge.
They're retracing his own history with our health care system.
How he had to pay $700 cash or some such thing to afford the first birth of his child.
The birth of his first child.
As though there's something criminal or corrupt or whatever.
Doing their best.
They're not trying to defend Obamacare.
They're going out and attacking the judge.
and They never examine The history of the past of liberal judges.
I think, folks, that we should proudly play up the fact that Judge Vinson is a Reagan nominee.
The left now loves Reagan.
They've been invoking Reagan since the buildup to Obama's State of the Union show.
Reagan asked, he's been reading all about Reagan.
Tried to sound Reagan-esque on the economy in the State of the Union show.
Obama loves Reagan now.
So I assumed that Obama would love the judges that Reagan appointed.
Vaughn Walker, the uh the judge in San Francisco who ruled for same-sex marriage, was also appointed by Reagan.
They love him.
Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Reagan.
They love her.
Ah, I would assume if they're going to be consistent that they will love Judge Vinson.
I think also, didn't this regime um ignore a law regarding Arizona during the uh Arizona illegal immigrant law.
I have to double check that.
But I think it's good.
I I we we we should encourage the state-controlled media to identify who appointed this judge.
Because not only was this judge's decision brilliant and courageous, most people agree with it.
We should be shouting this from the rooftops.
Two-thirds of the American people don't want Obamacare.
Two-thirds want it repealed.
Here comes a judge who is on the side of a significant majority.
Proudly proclaim his name.
Judge Vinson proudly proclaim who nominated him, Ronald Reagan.
Brilliant decision.
Reagan judge, Reagan judge, Reagan appointed judge, upheld the Constitution, struck down Obamacare.
Great for conservatism.
People on our side who believe the era of Reagan is over.
You can slink away now and come out of your hole in a couple of weeks.
For now, the era of Reagan is alive and well and may have saved the United States from a transformation to pure utter socialism.
Long live Ronald Reagan and long live Judge Vinson and long live all of Reagan's appointees.
Two-thirds of the American people agree with the judge.
The administration loves Ronald Reagan all of a sudden.
We should mention, we should mention Ronald Reagan appointing this judge as often as John Kerry's Vietnam service is mentioned, which is every time his name is mentioned.
Let the people know who stands with the Constitution and who does not.
Do, do, do, do, do.
and And welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh in a fine, fine mood here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, 800 282-2882 is the number.
If you uh if you want to be on the program today.
A lot of support uh articles today for the uh monologue I just presented.
Uh the morning bell at the Heritage Foundation just has a fabulous uh review of this ruling and what it all means.
What you really need to know is that there was some erroneous original reporting that said the regime can continue to implement while they appeal.
They cannot.
This law has been voided.
It has been ruled unconstitutional.
And I heard earlier today that Obama is uh sequestered behind closed doors today.
Uh not having any public meetings for most of the day.
It is said that he's uh meeting with advisors over what's going on in Egypt.
Ha!
I don't believe that for a minute.
There may be part of that, some of that going on.
I think I think there is abject panic over this ruling for crying out loud, folks.
This, you know it as well as I do.
This is the linchpin.
This is the foundation of the new America.
They were hoping to sneak in this ability, the federal government mandate people have something by virtue of that not have something.
And that once once it's been established that it's constitutional, you have to buy health insurance or face a penalty or maybe jail time.
Where would it be unconstitutional to say that they can't make you buy a gun?
What if some Republican regime comes along next time you gotta have a gun?
It's it's uh sophistry to think that anything of the sort is in constitution.
I'll tell you, Judge Vinson's reference to the original Tea Party was really a great poke in the eye for the Democrats and the media.
I mean, he could have cited any number of examples, but I mean to take that one.
I mean, that was just I'm gonna I'm gonna jam this in the nearest orifice I can find, and I'm not stopping till I hear a lot of pain.
As we know this bunch hates the founding, they're not they well, they don't hate it.
It's just it's it's a it's it's a problem for them.
The uh the whole notion.
If you can mandate that anybody or everybody buy health insurance, what's to keep President Palin and a Republican Congress mandating that you buy a gun and that you shoot caribou with it.
By the way, Palin, she spoke to some gun club in Reno.
I forget the name of the club.
I've got the story here in the stack, and she revealed a secret.
She said, Yeah, there was some politics in my TLC series.
I dragged them up to Anwar under the auspices of shooting caribou, but they didn't know where we were going.
But now there's all kinds of video tape showing Anwar is a desolate, worthless place that could not possibly be harmed by drilling for oil.
And of course, the audience at this place, if it wasn't Reno, just stood up and gave her a huge standing O. Now, uh remaining moments here for the Haney Project.
And I'm going to address this next episode tonight at 9 o'clock.
And by the way, thank you because the the rating numbers have built every every week.
Golf Channel told me we're used to, and maybe after two weeks they start going the other way.
I said, no, they're gonna keep building here.
Uh what are you gonna do more interviews?
The USA didn't.
No, I'm not gonna do any interviews.
I sold nine million books without ever doing a signing.
I didn't, I didn't do one interview for either of those nine million books.
Anyway, this question that people have sent me is uh is a legitimate question.
It's the Haney Project, and as far as they're concerned, this is about me getting golf lessons and getting better.
And right now there are three episodes that people have seen, and there's some confusion because of the way it's been edited, nobody knows what they're trying to fix.
All they see is me out there swinging a club getting a little ticked off.
They see Haney getting a little ticked off, but they don't know what is trying to be fixed.
And it's it's it's just the way things have happened.
It's been hard for them to show this because, in all candor, I have improved, but the degree of improvement up to this stage had not happened during tapings with Haney.
What had happened during tapings with Haney was when he was totally changing my swing and I was adjusting to it.
And for those of you who've been through this, you know that it's starting all over, it's it's not pretty.
And that's what you've seen.
So I would finish, you know, with a you know, 12, 14-hour weekend, and I'd come back home and play, and the level of improvement started when their cameras weren't around.
And tonight's episode, you will see that.
Tonight's episode with my uh go out with my good friend Lord David Rosso, who was the president of the Palm Beach Town Council here.
We go out and we play Trump International here.
Part of the show is Haney opening up a new uh training center in China over there with the ChICOMs, and I think Catherine Zeta Jones, and that's intercut with Rosso and me playing at Trump.
And tonight, uh, on this episode, there will be the first indication, but Haney's not around.
He doesn't know it.
At this point, he's not seen it.
There will be evidence of my improvement based on the things he's trying to get me to do.
Tonight is the first time.
So after tonight, I don't I hope I don't get any more questions.
Well, is he helping you?
Because that's all I've gotten.
And of course, we've only got one episode left to shoot.
You've only seen three, but there are five more.
We've said we shot uh two in LA over the weekend with uh Al Michaels with one of them, uh, and and then me and Haney on the other.
That'll no, no, no, no, we're not doing the last one in China.
I'm not gonna tell you where the last one's done.
We'll draw a crowd.
I don't know that.
Uh no, no, no.
It's gonna be done in a foreign country, but it isn't gonna be done in China.
Now, I've told you all along, episode five.
Episode five is the gold standard.
Episode five, you don't want to miss.
Tonight's episode leads into episode five.
Tonight, you'll see me playing better with Rosso.
This leads into next Tuesday's episode in the Bahamas, where just don't miss that one.
Then the next one after that, don't miss that one.
Episodes five and six do not know.
I'm saying this before I've seen them edited, but they're gonna have to really screw up the editing to make these look bad.
Because it was, these are home run episodes.
And then uh episode seven, we just finished taping, and based on what happened there, don't miss that one.
So tonight is the f the fourth episode, the halfway point is the first time that anybody's going to see an in- I'll give you a little just a little uh indication.
Next episode in the Bahamas a week from tonight, Haney said, I don't know if it makes the cut, I don't know if it makes the show.
He says, I've never had, I've never seen this much improvement when I haven't been around.
Well, that's unfortunate because their cameras haven't been around at the time.
So you just it but it's all gonna start coming together here, folks.
I gotta take a break.
I'll be right back after this.
Yeah, it's kind of like you have to watch the Haney show to find out what's in it, sort of like the healthcare bill.
And we will be right back.
Lots of other stuff in the news.
▲
Export Selection